In my opinion a solution is impossible without Russia due to the security council veto and the fact of trade.
costs nothing
You
can always ask
Talking
is better than fighting.
Be
the example of whatever you wish to see in other people.
Command
theory of law, rule of law.
International
law – nations and states
General Principle of Non-Intervention
in purely domestic affairs is generally prohibited, the general prohibition has
specific exceptions.
Humanitarian
Relief – Food, Medicine, Clothing
Not
a use of force: an intervention.
Justifications:
Civil
disorder making the domestic government incapable of governing (And? Or?)
Human
rights protection to prevent conflict
Also
legal where the State consents.
Syria
– U.S. provided humanitarian relief, Syria consented.
Afghanistan
2001 – U.S. provided humanitarian relief, no effective self-government in
region, certainly no recognized government
Humanitarian
Rescue: Intervention to rescue hostages, to extract citizens
Justification:
Self defence
Syria 2013 – Russia lands naval infantry to extract Russian citizens and their
families
Entebbe
– Israelis rescue Israeli hostages in Uganda because Uganda did nothing against
the terrorists.
Kolweizi
197? – France lands paratroops (Dassant) to rescue Europeans
Intervention:
Illegal
use of force unless authorized by U.N. Security Council.
The
U.N.
U.N.
Member States agreed to prohibit the use of force except
1)
in self defence
2)
when authorized by the Security Council
Permanent Members of the Security Council can veto. Members can abstain from
voting. Decision must be unanimous, but abstention is permitted.
U.N. Charter is an international treaty: Treaties are one source of
international law.
Notice
this is another example of putting a monopoly on the use of force to prevent
the use of force.
States
are generally free to use non-violent sanctions: no state is obligated to
trade, to be polite or friendly, to allow investments. States have the right to
control their own territory and to protect the people on their own territory.
However, because of the wars the norms of free movement of goods (World Trade
Organization) and of capital and even of people came into being as norms which
are exceptions to the general rule of state sovereignty: these norms came into
being to prevent another world war. Trade leads to interdependence and
prosperity. When people meet each other they are likelier to be friends than
afraid.
What
is the use of force?
Killing
people – but how many? In my opinion even one person, because the right to life
is the most important human right. Some people think its ok to kill a few
people or the right people. I don’t think that view will attract support, no
one likes killing.
it can do – it implicitly authorizes other states to do. So if the U.S. thinks
drone strikes, torture, abductions, prisons, are legal then it implies that it
thinks it is also legal for Russia to do those things!
This is because of the principle of sovereign equality: all States have the
same legal status under international law. Each state has a monopoly of legal
violence within their own borders, generally speaking, and each state has a
right to self defence. This is a procedural formal equality.
Are
there compelling measures which are non-deadly yet which are the use of force?
blockade which just stops and searches ships, for example? Is that a use of
force?
forced relocation of people a use of force?
about economic sanctions? Boycott? Embargo? Freezing bank accounts? Visa
restrictions?
Sovereignty
historically was the absolute and exclusive right of the sovereign over the
lives and property of all persons and things on their territory and all the
sovereigns subjects and all persons on the sovereign’s territory – territorial
principle, personality principle.
1945 sovereignty has become relativized by human rights and has become
transferrable. Sovereignty is the general principle, human rights are
exceptions to it. Restrictions on state sovereignty shall not be presumed so
whoever wishes to argue for an international human right has the burden of
proof that there is such a right and that the right is enforceable by the
person who has that right.
abduction. Abduction (kidnapping) is illegal, but the person who can enforce
the right is the State of the kidnapped person, not the kidnapped person
themselves.
general rule is that the only bearers of rights and duties are States
exception to the general rule: individuals have rights and duties under
international law (human rights).
CRIMEA:
disorder.
Domestic
government unstable, uncertain.
Real
risk of grave human rights violations.
Russian
naval bases.
Nuclear
reactors. (NPP)
intervenes.
1)
Is the Russian intervention a use of force?
2)
If the Russian intervention is a use of force, is it justifiable as an
exception to the prohibition of the use of force?
i.
Self-defence? (clearly justifies use of force)
ii.
Risk of Grave human rights violations? (probably doesn’t justify use of force –
should it?)
(“Responsibility
to protect”)
Self
Defence?
Self-defence
must be a reaction to an imminent threat, instant and overwhelming leaving no
chance for deliberation or choice of means.
Self
defence because: Russian bases, Russian citizens, Russian Nationals
(Citizenship
and Nationality are not the same)
a)
Was there an effective government in Crimea?
i.
government in Kiev overthrown!
ii.
Thus, no monopoly of legitimate political violence!
b)
Was there a threat of grave human rights violations?
i.
language prohibitions! (first language, then relocate, then “liquidate”)
ii.
killings at Maiden!
Was there a threat to international peace and security leaving Russia no
choice?
i.
NPP – risk of nuclear terrorism